Opinion
2001-04945.
April 11, 2005.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered May 17, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Howard Greenberg, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Karol B. Mangum of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Florio, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly curtailed his right of cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Lyons, 81 NY2d 753, 754; People v. Iannelli, 69 NY2d 684, 685, cert denied 482 US 914; People v. Odiot, 242 AD2d 308; People v. McEachern, 237 AD2d 381; People v. Dunbar, 145 AD2d 501). In any event, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of the eyewitness ( see People v. Odiot, supra; People v. McEachern, supra; People v. Daniels, 225 AD2d 632; People v. Delcarpio, 221 AD2d 359, 360; People v. Taylor, 214 AD2d 757).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-714; People v. Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; People v. Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal.